Roenicke wants me to think he's an idiot (Kotsay in CF)

[JoeHova]

Robin Yount is a more ideal number 2 hitter than Corey Hart, but isn't a lot of that simply because he was a better hitter than Corey Hart?

[danzig6767]

Casey, wouldn't you agree that Hart isn't an ideal #2 hitter? If I think of "ideal #2 hitter," I think of Robin Yount much more than Corey Hart.

 

Right now, with Weeks at #1, Braun at #3, and Fielder at #4, with the choices for #2 being Hart, McGehee, Yuni, Lucroy or Gomez, Hart is probably a good choice, although an arguement could be made for Lucroy. I take Roenicke saying that Hart may not be there all season to mean that once Morgan's back, he'll be the #2 hitter in the lineup (at least against RHP), which I am perfectly fine with. At that point, McGehee/Hart can man the 5/6 spots in the lineup.

Hart is far from an ideal #2. I'm not sure he's even that big of an upgrade over Gomez there to offset the loss of his RBI bat down in the 6th spot. I don't quite see Lucroy there either but it's not a horrible idea. When you think of ideal #2 hitters in the game today, you have to look at a guy like Placido Polanco. Polanco is a contact hitter, but more than that, he's able to utilize the entire field depending on situations. The Brewers don't really have that guy on their roster.

I've been hearing this said for years about how many people think a number two batter should hit, but i wanna know why exactly?

 

Why does the second batter in a lineup need to be someone that makes a lot of contact, "moves runners" for whatever that exactly is supposed to mean, utilize the whole field, be able to bunt, etc? What about batting second makes these things so hugely important?

 

Obviously in the vast majority of baseball lineups, the number 3 and 4 hitters will be the best batters on a team or at least among the top batters on a team, along with those two guys usually also being hitters with a good to great amount of power. So it seems common sense to me that a team should mainly want more than anything the 1-2 batters to be guys that get on base so that the number 3-4 hitters have baserunners to drive in. It also would be a nice added bonus if those 1-2 hitters have some speed to go along with on base abilities so that they can score more easily on singles/doubles by the 3-4 hitters.

 

After those two qualities, everything else would rank a distant 3rd or 4th for me. This stuff about making contact a lot and utilizing the whole field mean nothing to me if the guy doesn't get on base a lot. Hell, Betancourt doesn't strike out much and hits the ball to all fields, but it just results in tons of outs. Plus, if the two hole guy has power to go along with being able to get on base pretty well, that means he'll bat more often than if he's hitting say 6th.

 

So if you can sell me on why the other stuff you mentioned is so important for a 2-hole hitters, i'll listen, but i'll need more reasoning than just because people having been saying this stuff for ages about what they want from that spot in the order.

 

FWIW, i'm cool with Morgan batting there vs righthanders once he returns since he gets on base. Besides that Morgan has shown an ability to get on base vs righthanders, it would also be nice to have a power bat after McGehee. Without Morgan being healthy though, the fact that Hart K's quite a bit and isn't a bunter doesn't bother me at all when he's batting second in the order.

[rluzinski]

I think the whole argument that the batting order matters little over the course of a season in terms of runs is extremely flawed. I love stats and see tremendous value in the incorporation of advanced statistics. However, unless you actually play out entire seasons - with human beings - batting in different spots, you will never truly know the impact of the construction of a lineup.

 

Do you realize that many of batting order studies have looked at human beings who batted in different spots during the course of playing an actual season? There have been batting order studies based off of simulations and ones based off of historical data. There is little statistical evidence to show the significant effects that many presume as fact. Lack of statistical evidence doesn't prove non-existence but what evidence can you provide to support existence?

[HOF4canrake]

I'm not trying to prove existence or non-existence. My problem with some stat-based beliefs is the portrayal of them as fact by many. This debate to me is like the arguments of the beginning of the world being between evolution and creation - neither can actually be proven. People can use various resources, beliefs and thought processes to come up with their own conclusions, but have no guaranteed correct answer.

 

What I was trying to say in regards to playing out different lineups is, for instance, literally having the same lineup for say 120 games

 

Weeks - Hart - Braun - Fielder - McGehee - Betancourt - Lucroy - Gomez - Pitcher

 

Then - and this obviously is entirely impossible - play the exact same season with a different lineup for 120 games.

 

Weeks - Braun - McGehee - Fielder - Hart - Lucroy - Betancourt - Pitcher - Gomez

 

Now you'd actually have a fairer representation because you're not changing their ages, experiences, other teams, etc. It's important to remember these guys are still human. I understand their stats often show a stunning consistency, but differences in lineups often change thought processes of players and managers, creates different game situations, and can instill confidence or a prolonged slump.

 

In terms of it affecting a player's psyche as well, I'm basing it off coaching college players for 6 years and talking with Major League players for 4 years about these sorts of things. Not everyone cares or is affected, but a vast majority think, act and react differently hitting 2nd as opposed to 7th - and mentally that plays a role in physical struggles or success.

 

 

[Ennder]

If you played the same exact lineup for 120 games and magically started the season over and played them again for 120 games you would get significantly different stats each time. Stats are great and all but there is a reason you use 3 years or more of them, over 162 games they are going to vary wildly.

[1992casey]

My problem with some stat-based beliefs is the portrayal of them as fact by many.

 

There are times that the statheads are a bit careless and portray statistical findings as facts. Other times, the gurus word things quite carefully and the reader mistakenly infers they're portraying the findings as fact.

 

The reality is that stats don't really prove or disprove anything. They demonstrate, don't demonstrate, support, strongly support, don't support, correlate, correlate strongly, don't correlate, show significance, don't show significance, etc.

 

If you played the same exact lineup for 120 games and magically started the season over and played them again for 120 games you would get significantly different stats each time.

 

I remember Russ running a simulation that covered 10,000 games. He qualified his findings by saying that 1,000,000 games would have been better and that the reason for sticking to 10,000 was to save time.

 

As far as lineups go, the way I understand it is that there isn't going to be a lot of difference between reasonably constructed lineups. Flip-flopping Braun and Fielder isn't going to mean much, for instance.

 

A full season with poor hitter at the top of the order rather than the bottom could mean a couple of wins. A lineup with players in ascending order of OPS vs. a fully optimized lineup could mean a difference of several wins.

[Thurston Fluff]

A full season with poor hitter at the top of the order rather than the bottom could mean a couple of wins. A lineup with players in ascending order of OPS vs. a fully optimized lineup could mean a difference of several wins.

 

Isn't lining up a row of poor hitters going to create incredibly easy innings for a pitcher? I would think if a team has multiple black holes there are two choices to hide them. One is to line them all up at the bottom and hope just suffer through it every couple innings or sprinkle them out between better ones. If someone chooses the latter then there has to be one close to the top of the order. Which way is best I have no idea. Perhaps there has been a study done on that as well. Just looking at it I would think there is merit to both approaches. One gives the best hitters more ab's throughout the year but incredibly easy innings for opponents pitchers in every game. The other hides them a little better but gives them more ab's thus more chance to hurt the team in the long run.

[logan82]

Stringing together as many non-outs as possible is the best way to score runs. Having a black hole bottom of the lineup sucks but not as much as having a crappy hitter make rally killing outs in front of your best hitters.

 

and yeah the PA thing. Over a course of a season it would really anger me to see Gomez/Betancourt get more PA than Braun, Fielder, McGehee, Hart and Lucroy.(taking injuries into consideration of course)

[logan82]

You know, there's certain guys I like to match up anyway and I thought

it was a good match up for him to sit htat day. You know I'm still, some

of the guys I'm still, I don't want out there nine innings every day

and he's one of those guys. Certainly, when he gets hot he's going to be

out there every day, but I thought it was a good time to do that.

From DPR's post game press conference last night. I wish I could just write it off as a manager just talking but his actions to this point say otherwise.

[monty57]

I've said a number of times that Hart is "All or nothing." However, his "nothing" is probably about equivalent to Kotsay's "all," whereas Hart's "all" is All-Star caliber and Kotsay's "nothing" really is nothing.

 

Hart may be frustrating, but there is no way that he shouldn't be starting every day. When the excuse was that he missed out on Spring Training, I didn't like it, but I could understand it. If Roenicke really thinks he's a guy that he "doesn't want out there nine innings every day," I don't think Roenicke's long for Milwaukee. Not only do I think he's easily the best available option, Melvin decided to extend him, so obviously Melvin sees him as the best available option. He certainly needs to play every day, and I'd have to believe that Melvin will step in at some point if Hart doesn't start playing more.

[brwrsfan]

When the other option presently is Mark Kotsay or Brandon Boggs, there is absolutely NO excuse to not have Hart out there at least 5-6 times a week. I can not understand the fascination with Kotsay that RR has, it's very distrubing.

[monty57]

I can not understand the fascination with Kotsay that RR has, it's very distrubing.

 

I have to wonder about his ability to read talent at all. He thinks Hart is a guy he "doesn't want out there nine innings every day," yet he continually put Green on the mound with the game on the line. The first thing he wanted when he came over was a veteran catcher, and apparently the talentless Nieves was A-OK with him. Morgan was only a defensive replacement behind Kotsay and Almonte until he just kept hitting, forcing Roenicke's hand. He starts Kotsay in CF over Boggs.

 

I've really tried to give him a long leash, and make excuses as to why some things are going on, as I really want to like a Brewers manager. Gomez at #2, well, he really didn't have many other options. Morgan riding the pines, well, he's said he's going to start him more. Lucroy batting #8, well, maybe he thinks that as a young catcher he doesn't want to put much pressure on him. Green getting so many appearances, well, maybe other 'pen members are hurting or can't go. Kotsay getting so much PT, well, he is getting on base a lot and hasn't tripped over himself in the field.

 

These things are starting to add up, and it's really looking more & more like he's really just in over his head. The players seem to like him (at least that's what they're telling the cameras), so maybe he's a real nice guy and would be fun to have a beer with, but he's continuing to make some managerial decisions that are awfully questionable.

[Thurston Fluff]

When the other option presently is Mark Kotsay or Brandon Boggs, there is absolutely NO excuse to not have Hart out there at least 5-6 times a week. I can not understand the fascination with Kotsay that RR has, it's very distrubing.

 

I think some are still jumping the gun on this. What a manager does early in the season is not necessarily what he does all season long. It is not uncommon at all to give more playing time to bench players early. Just like it's not uncommon to use a particular reliever that way. Lets just wait and see if he does this all season long or not before judging him. Kotsay is playing as well as can be expected. If the plan is to play bench players more often early why not use the guy who is playing above his head at that point? If kotsay gets 400ab's by season's end (barring injuries) then it will be valid a criticism. Until then why the rush to judge? It's not like it's going to help or change anything anyway so why not let it play out prior to judging one way or the other?

[monty57]

BUC, what got me from the quotes was that Roenicke seems to have decided that Hart wasn't someone he wants playing regularly from seeing him in Spring Training over the past few years when he was a coach with the Angels.

 

I know this is just a post-game interview, and coaches say a lot of things, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard a manager say. If he had said "I watched the Brewers' playoff run in 2008, and Hart looked lost," I could empathize. Maybe he could say "Hart looked great the first half of last sesaon, but fell of in the second half." But making that decision based on a hadful of Spring Training ABs from a couple years ago? We will now play a less talented player because Hart swung at a bad slider in March 2007.

 

I've stuck up for Kotsay more than most, but if Kotsay plays at his best, like he did in Atlanta, he could probably post a .750-ish OPS. If Hart plays at his worst, like he did in 2009, he's around a .750-ish OPS player. Barring injury, the odds that Kotsay could outperform Hart over any significant period are probably 5-10%. Something doesn't jibe when Roenicke stands by Kotsay yet says Hart is a guy he "doesn't want out there nine innings every day." This statement was made after a game in which Hart hit 3 HR and had 7 RBI.

 

I certainly could be jumping the gun, but boy was that a dumb comment by Roenicke. Plus, all the ums and ers make it sound like he was really trying to be tactful and not say something more demeaning towards Hart.

[dadofandrew]

Back to the original point, Kotsay certainly is not as good a CF defender as Gomez, but he's now played parts of 3 games out in CF and he can certainly play CF if necessary, albeit at a below average MLB level.. One has to remember that CF's, on average, only touch the ball 3 times a game, and often, they are just on routine fly balls and singles.

 

As for Hart, none of us have any idea if he is healthy, be it his oblique or something else. He said the day off Sunday was much appreciated. It's a long season, to be honest, Prince and Ryan could likely use a game off now and then, especially if at less than 100%.

[rluzinski]

You know, there's certain guys I like to match up anyway and I thought

it was a good match up for him to sit htat day. You know I'm still, some

of the guys I'm still, I don't want out there nine innings every day

and he's one of those guys. Certainly, when he gets hot he's going to be

out there every day, but I thought it was a good time to do that.

From DPR's post game press conference last night. I wish I could just write it off as a manager just talking but his actions to this point say otherwise.

A manager trying to chase a batter's hot and cold streaks.... awesome.

have to wonder about his ability to read talent at all

It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another when reality has to beat the crap out of you for a month and half before you even consider the possibility that you might have been wrong. It seems that everything RR's gut has told him has been wrong.

[endaround]

Back to the original point, Kotsay certainly is not as good a CF defender as Gomez, but he's now played parts of 3 games out in CF and he can certainly play CF if necessary, albeit at a below average MLB level.. One has to remember that CF's, on average, only touch the ball 3 times a game, and often, they are just on routine fly balls and singles.

 

As for Hart, none of us have any idea if he is healthy, be it his oblique or something else. He said the day off Sunday was much appreciated. It's a long season, to be honest, Prince and Ryan could likely use a game off now and then, especially if at less than 100%.

Kotsay isn't as good defensively and he isn't any better offensively. The ZiPS® wOBAs:

Kotsay .300

Gomez .299

Boggs .303

Kotsay just shouldn't ever play the field, he's isn't now nor has he ever been the best option.

[rluzinski]

About 8 years ago, I was arguing that the differences between a below average and good defender was pretty small. About 7 years ago, I realized how wrong I was.

[MJLiverock]

Yesterday on the drive home I caught part of an interview with RR, talking about Hart. He mentioned that on Monday during BP, Hart changed his hands in his swing/stance because he just felt so uncomfortable in the batter's box. Hart did it right at the end of BP and had some success so he went with it. Of course Hart went out and hit 3 bombs but what was interesting to me was RR talking about Hartsaid he felt uncomfortable in the box, and Hart said he was really in a funk. These are the types of things that lead a manager to give a guy a day off, like Hart on Sunday, which may not always come up in the pre game/post game interviews, but lead fans to think the manager is crazy or ask why isn't Hart playing everyday. Hart should be playing nearly every game over Kotsay but if Hart tells the manger he doesn't feel comfortable in the box or feels like he is in a funk then a day off may not be such a bad thing. The players aren't robots and I think sometimes the manager has to be given the benefit of the doubt on why a guy is sitting for a game.

 

When Morgan comes back it will be interesting to see if he consistently stays above Kotsay in the CF pecking order.

[Raw Biz]

When Morgan comes back it will be interesting to see if he consistently stays above Kotsay in the CF pecking order.

With Kotsay starting again today (and the fact that he consistently started over Morgan in April), I think Roenicke considers Kotsay the 4th outfielder. I really don't understand this. Kotsay went 0-4 yesterday and his defense is terrible. Some people on here said a few games in CF for Kotsay won't hurt us but this is his 4th game starting there in the last week. He's gone 4 for 13 with no walks (3 hits in one game) so he's not exactly lighting the world on fire here. He's also missed a few balls that Gomez would have gotten, for sure one of which led to a run. I hate to beat a dead horse but at what point do people think this is going to become a problem? I hope Morgan replaces Kotsay in these situations when he comes back but I honestly think Roenicke won't do it.

[joepepsi]

I don't understand why Boggs isn't starting today. I know he's hitting something like .114 but his at bats are great in the way he works the count and he plays hard. He's earned the opportunity.

[theavrock]

I don't understand why Boggs isn't starting today. I know he's hitting something like .114 but he at bats are great in the way he works the count and he plays hard. He's earned the opportunity.

And he has to play a better OF than Kotsay. Can any of the stat heads confirm?

[cwolf2012]

"Can any of the stat heads confirm?"

 

Without citing any stats whatsoever, I will give you an unequivocal, resounding "YES" to that question.

[logan82]

Gomez is one of the best defensive CF in baseball. Kotsay is one of the worst. Does anything we have seen on the field dispute that? I am not sure we could have a more night and day defensive scenario. Add in that we can probably expect similar offensive production and there is no reason to let Kotsay play in CF(baring bodies buried in the Arizona desert).

 

The only nail missing in DPR's coffin for me at this point is a few stats of Kotsay over Morgan. Then he is done.

[endaround]

I don't understand why Boggs isn't starting today. I know he's hitting something like .114 but he at bats are great in the way he works the count and he plays hard. He's earned the opportunity.

And he has to play a better OF than Kotsay. Can any of the stat heads confirm?

Its mostly scouting reports from the minors but everything I've seen says he's average which makes him much better than Kotsay.